I've read through the terms that define it but this is assuming self-diagnosis has a possibility of merit in the first place. The real question is whether it has meaning in the end. Alright, so let's say I hold an extreme importance over my 'self', I'm vain, etc. That's the likely truth. I do love myself unremorsefully. For the sake of my contention, I am a narcissist.

However, where I do not compromise is in the manipulation and destruction of others. Never in my life would I consider gaining by the fall of another man. Never do I enjoy considering mass destruction in the name of gains of myself or others. I enjoy loving other people; I enjoy seeing people reach their greatest heights. Do I love seeing them fall? Never.

To say my personality is nothing but vices in the face of that aforementioned truth, that I have no intention of hurting you or nobody else is perplexing. In fact, in the end, it's nothing but a matter of mere preference it seems.

So here is my question: Should one change their character's appearance merely to be more preferable in the lives of others? In this case, one who appears so sure and content with themselves? Should one really strive to be tactful in all cases?

Why do you constantly ask people for advice(on the internet where we're all unemotoinal bastards here for little more than our own amusement) instead of using that human capacity for free will to make your own decisions?

Why do you constantly ask people for advice(on the internet where we're all unemotoinal bastards here for little more than our own amusement) instead of using that human capacity for free will to make your own decisions?

Because people's advice has value. I can gain insight from the perception of others that I cannot gain alone. A good mix of it might be fallible but it's still valuable nonetheless.

Why do you constantly ask people for advice(on the internet where we're all unemotoinal bastards here for little more than our own amusement) instead of using that human capacity for free will to make your own decisions?

Because people's advice has value. I can gain insight from the perception of others that I cannot gain alone. A good mix of it might be fallible but it's still valuable nonetheless.

Wells here some worth it's weight in whatever currency you use then, you're you. you can't change for someone else because you're living a lie, if you're a vain SOB then that's just who you are, follow through on your word and people will respect you even if they don't like you.

I think you'll learn that the desire for human interaction is hard-coded. So your faced with lieing to yourself and others inorder to gain social acceptance/approval (or at the very least, mitigate the disapproval you would normally recieve).

You could of course choose to try to explain and converse with others about your differences - but that's in vain. You'll suffer more heart-ache exposing yourself to those who do not understand, or wish not to take the time to form new perspectives (a selfless narccisist? you don't say....).

However through the course of putting on sheeps clothes inorder to be accepted, you'll lose that 'connection' with people - it'll be a script. It'll be lonely. It'll be lonely until you learn how to only reveal yourself to others who also in the same situation. Not just other would-be narccisists, but others who are also 'socially unacceptable'. But only if you see in them that they are also 'faking it'. At that point you have a chance to have a 'connection' again with another person, hopefully with each persons journey through the muck of acceptance can share and gain new perspectives from each other.

These will be sparse, and won't fully fill the void. There will be something missing. You'll find that you can no longer betray yourself. The only honest course, to balance genuine human interaction and conveying who you are despite the social nonacceptance will be to endure the pain that comes with it. By now you will have weighed what aspects you project and how 'unacceptable' they are, and how much those aspects mean to you. You'll discard the merely inflammatory, hide the precious, and will socially trade with the majority of the self-aspects that are important to you, yet acceptable to others. This will still allow other genuine connections once your 'social sample' has been remarked by another, and then you can share those precious aspects with only the few who might appreciate it. You'll have more shallow hurt, but also more deep happiness.

I'm in public relations so I think about how to present myself and my clients in the best ways all the time. That isn't narccissm, it's just practical.

Tact is mainly a social lubricant. We behave around strangers tactfully because we don't know anything about them and we don't want to offend. That isn't being deceptive, just acting according to social protocol that eases us into closer relationships. In the end everyone knows a politician, for example, is just following a playbook but we all do that ourselves too.

Once you get to know a person you can let your guard down and be yourself, but it isn't always going to be what the other person wants in a friend. That's okay, but another element of tact is letting that happen gracefully. Not everyone is a friend or an enemy, sometimes people are just people. There is no rule about how many people you need to be close with, do your best to gather the best people around you.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."

You claim that you do not wish harm on others, but you are a libertarian with some very Ayn views. In your ideal utopian world, people like myself (disabled due to a motorcycle crash 10 years ago) would be simply left to rot and starve.

You claim that you do not wish harm on others, but you are a libertarian with some very Ayn views. In your ideal utopian world, people like myself (disabled due to a motorcycle crash 10 years ago) would be simply left to rot and starve.

You need to actually read Rand before you can form an opinion on her philosophy. However, while I agree with some of the cores of her philosophy, I do not currently follow her strictly.

In my ideal world, people would voluntarily help people like yourself in a more effective and efficient manner. You may claim that would be against one's self interest but I believe it's in our inherent nature to gain selfish pleasure from helping those in need. It's one of the cornerstones of our species that we continue to neglect to acknowledge due to pervading culture.

I do not want the helpless to suffer but to have the "altruism" used more optimally to your end. The fact you are being sustained shows there is kindness in our world. It doesn't exist in a collective or a government but individuals. Individuals have chosen to help you and they can only serve you better in a free society.

You are valuable and just because people are free to do as they choose wouldn't make you any less valuable to the people that choose to value you.

If you wish to claim that you cannot be valued, loved nor produce anything of value and that people can only sustain you by force, I will be the first to say you have brought me value today by your very post.

I studied Rand indepth before you were born, so I think I know what I'm talking about

The only reason why I am still alive my friend is because of the state, not individuals. Most people who encounter severe disability will tell you that individuals and friends tend to disappear quite quickly. The state safety net provided me with healthcare, housing, social care and for a while, subsidence until I could start a new business.

You have some incredibly naive and ignorant views Immanuel. Those views probably have something to do with you being 17 years old, still living at home and having absolutely zero life experience.

I studied Rand indepth before you were born, so I think I know what I'm talking about

The only reason why I am still alive my friend is because of the state, not individuals. Most people who encounter severe disability will tell you that individuals and friends tend to disappear quite quickly. The state safety net provided me with healthcare, housing, social care and for a while, subsidence until I could start a new business.

You have some incredibly naive and ignorant views Immanuel. Those views probably have something to do with you being 17 years old, still living at home and having absolutely zero life experience.

I will stand by my original contention. You do not validly address her intentions nor mine. Her philosophy of value and how the misfortunate can be cared for are coherently stated in The Virtue of Selfishness. You may not believe this intention can be achieved in a utilitarian-sense but in heart it is whole. You are acting on your rigid perception of her works and not what she has voiced.

The state is not an organism. It consists of individuals; the individuals elected to positions in the state valued people like you enough to coerce money from the populace to sustain you. The people cared enough about you to elect such officials. While a distorted model by my standards, it was a form of individual compassion albeit violent.

You believe I have some naive and ignorant views. I believe I know nothing. I am only acting on what I have observed thus far and hold it accurate to such standard. I am open to being validly refuted at any time.

Immanuel is correct that government programs are an expression of our own care for our fellow man. However, what is missing here is the reasons we do it this way instead of on a community basis. In short, as much as well all want to help others we don't trust others to be willing to help us. There is too much crime and greed among humans for anyone rational to believe otherwise. If a community has firm trust in each other, it can work the libertarian way. Amish communities manage to pay for their own healthcare among the community without even turning to insurance. However, most communities and all nations do not have that kind of unity when spread out to millions of very different people.

So, socialist policies are in the end neccesary to express the will of the people that people who need help should not be allowed to fall through the cracks, not at all taking from people against their will.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."

Atlas, I hope that in a few years, when you have done some drugs and gotten some pussy and actually lived a bit o' the real life, you can laugh about the fact that you were so fucking arrogant and cocksure that even strangers on the internet were driven to mock you.

Let me just give you the best life advice you will ever receive, though I can almost guarantee that you have although disregarded the very same from every psychologist or psychiatrist you have ever seen. Ready?

Go outside.

Seriously. Go outside. Look at some pretty girls, or guys if that's what you are into. Have a conversation with a stranger where you don't creep them out by going into some self-absorbed 17-year-old philosopher/dickhead rant about how you've got it all figured out. Perhaps since you have already achieved captain-of-industry status at 17, you have time for a small social experiment where you pretend you are like everyone else your age. Touch some boob, slam some beers, smoke some pot, do some backpacking. Whatever...just have a catharsis that isn't fucking randian in nature...basically, quit being such a fucking pussy. I bet you'll like life a lot more.

So if you buy a ticket on that train of thought, 'lying' a new persona to satisfy others admits a respect for your audience over yourself. Acting in order to gain an advantage will likely put the spot light on your flaccid standing. Do you respect yourself?

I would say one should try to be sincerely humble, not for the sake of others, but for oneself. Recognize that you are not superior in most things, you have much to learn, and ignorance of your own ignorance is greater than all of your knowledge and ability.

Oh and smoke a spliff, get some pussy, travel, breath the air, is good advice. I'd throw a little acid in the mix as well.

It's ok. My world view is in constant flux that I've stopped holding dogmas. You should really look into Carl Sagan or James Burke for some other perspectives that will add value to your belief system. They certainly changed me fundamentally.

What you actually believe in is saying some variation of "I know nothing" every time you get called out for acting like a know-it-all.

I mean, goddamn, you're trying to feign humble in a thread called "So I might be a narcissist" that you started yourself. My head hurts.

I couldn't feign humility if I truly wished. I feel everyday--I truly feel burdened by what has yet to be learned. I love that feeling of astonishment. In fact, I live for it. I enjoy being refuted, challenged and building my perspective from scratch. I take quite an ecstasy in the fact that I am certain of nothing but my own ignorance. Life would be so boring otherwise.

While my valid contention does not fit your rigid perspective of me, I am a rational human being. Deny it if that would truly please you in the end.